瑜伽師地論略纂 2.23

2.23

「又非五識有二剎那」下，明識乃得生中，文分為四：一、明五識剎那；二、明五心差別；三、釋經一心言；四、明五心緣境之世。五識剎那中，《唯識》第四有二說。一云：五識唯一剎那，自類前後定無二剎那相隨而生，亦非五識展轉無間更互而生。以此文為證。〈決擇〉等言若此六識為彼六識等無間緣者，言總說六，意說五識前後定唯有意識，意識便通生故。　二云：此依未自在位，多分率爾心唯一剎那，非等流心及自在位。廣引理教，皆如彼說。彼開導依，第三正義雖各自類，不說五識相續剎那，同前同後，皆不違理。然取後義，多順諸文。

From "Furthermore, it is not the case that the five consciousnesses have two moments..." onward, in clarifying how consciousness is then able to arise, the text is divided into four: first, clarifying the moment of the five consciousnesses; second, clarifying the distinction among the five minds; third, interpreting the sūtra's statement of "one mind"; fourth, clarifying the temporal periods of the objects apprehended by the five minds. Regarding the moment of the five consciousnesses, the fourth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi presents two opinions. The first says: The five consciousnesses last for only a single moment; between earlier and later moments of their own category, there are definitely never two moments arising in succession, nor do the five consciousnesses arise mutually and uninterruptedly from one another. This passage is cited as proof. Where the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī and other texts say that if these six consciousnesses act as the equal and immediate condition for those six consciousnesses, the word comprehensively speaks of six, but the intention is that before and after the five consciousnesses there is definitely only the mental consciousness, because the mental consciousness readily arises. The second says: This refers to the stage where mastery has not been attained; for the most part, the spontaneous mind (manaskāra / āvarjana) lasts only a single moment, not the flowing mind (nisyanda-citta) or the stage of mastery. Extensive citations of reason and scripture are all as stated there. Regarding the open-and-guiding condition (samanantara-pratyaya) there, although the third correct view maintains their own separate streams, it does not state that the five consciousnesses continue in succession; whether identical to the former or the latter, neither contradicts reason. However, adopting the latter view is more consistent with the various texts.